From: Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 13:38:13 GMT
Subject: Re: Revert behavior [Was: Re: [ANNOUNCE] yap: Yet Another (Git) Porcelain]
Message-ID: <200809091538.13961.jnareb@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <51419b2c0809090626p2196c590j7569fb471e470f0d@mail.gmail.com>

Elijah Newren wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 10:25 PM, Govind Salinas
> <govind@sophiasuchtig.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 8:05 PM, Steven Walter <stevenrwalter@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > I had some very different ideas along the lines of reducing the number of
> > commands (where the commands do something similar just DWIM rather
> > than force me to remember or read docs on different commands), making
> > commands look similar to commands from other SCMs (revert should do
> > what it does for me in all the other SCMs that I have used, which is to
> > checkout the HEAD copy into the working directory)
> 
> Your description of revert in various systems isn't quite accurate; it
> isn't necessarily HEAD, since most systems (at least bzr and hg) can
> also revert files to revisions earlier than HEAD.  In fact, questions
> of how to do that have come up several times on this list, so you
> wouldn't want to exclude that case.  Also, the revert behavior of git
> (minus perhaps the default auto-commit) comes in pretty handy too
> sometimes, and I can't easily find it in other systems (I suspect many
> just drop back to diff + patch to handle the case that git provides).
[...]

By the way, I think the fact that in different SCMs meaning of
"$scm revert" and of "$scm reset" differs widely caused Mercurial
to adopt "hg backout" for creating a commit which reverts changes
(cherry-pick -R), and "hg rollback" to undo last commit.

-- 
Jakub Narebski
Poland